Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

British Press - friend or foe

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
We've done the press before and MMR recently too, but this article made me really angry:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,650212,00.html

Basically it is saying that the government's MMR campaign has received a boost by the announcement of (yet another) clinical study which indicates that there is<STRONG>no link</STRONG> between the triple MMR jab and autism or bowel disease.

My anger is not directed specifically at the Guardian because all the papers have been running similar stories recently.

I was annoyed because public health should not be a party political issue that needs reporting in this way. They are using the panic amongst parents as a stick to beat the government with. When in fact the press itself is causing the panic. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more they report on the panic; the parents paying for single jabs; the Wakefield paper; the autistic children paraded in front of the cameras by parents who after their 5 minutes of fame (and a quick buck) - the more parents worry --> panic --> press reporting on panic etc...

The government relies on the press to relay information to the general public. We need the press. But when they let down the public like this, it gets on my tits <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">. Public health is more important than their circulation numbers.

All the evidence supports MMR, but still the press will not back it. Why??
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with you completely, why couldn't the papers say "scientific test shows MMR is safe" not "Blair says MMR is safe".

    Would it be beyond the papers to simply try and sell more copies by creating panic
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah those evil reporters....They tell us all what to think and we all just take what they say as gospel.

    People do have minds of their own you know. The papers put out information, its down to the people that read them to make their own decisions.

    The press wont back MMR because its a massive issue for many people...Whether these people are right or not is totally irrelevent. They have a right to have their issues addressed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But it shouldn't be a political issue, the govt has this policy and its effects can be decide by scientific investigation, all the evidence points to its safety but the press constantly gives it mass coverage when it shouldn't even be an issue, they are doing it to sell papers
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why shouldn't it be an issue? If it concerns parents then it is an issue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is a medical scientific issue, the MMR can be proved definately to be either dangerous or not. It should not be a political issue ie New Labour supporting its policies despite critiscism
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats the thing though Toadborg, the press are only after paper sales. That means that they cannot print crap that doesnt interest people....The reason this MMR thing is so big and is in so many papers is exactly because its an issue to so many.

    Its the whole chicken and egg thing innit..Do the papers sell because people are interested in the issue or do people become interested in the issue because its in the papers?

    Personally I think its the first..People dont read articles that they arent interested in.

    How can it not be a political issue when its being dealt with by the government to such a degree? Personally, ive seen precious few docs or scientists talking about this. Ive seen various MPs and the like passing on information from the docs. It appears to be a political issue because its being presented by politicians.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>Thats the thing though Toadborg, the press are only after paper sales. That means that they cannot print crap that doesnt interest people....The reason this MMR thing is so big and is in so many papers is exactly because its an issue to so many.
    </STRONG>
    ......because the papers are blowing it out of proportion. That's my point - they create the panic with their deliberately cynical and ambiguous reporting.
    <STRONG>Its the whole chicken and egg thing innit..Do the papers sell because people are interested in the issue or do people become interested in the issue because its in the papers?

    Personally I think its the first..People dont read articles that they arent interested in.
    </STRONG>
    Maybe, but people get interested in the first place when a government policy id brought into doubt - the trouble is, there has been no conclusion to the Wakefield paper. He panicked a lot of people with his findings, the press jumped on it as a government failure, and the public got worried....and thus interested. But now all the medical evidence has been put forward, it has been ignored by the press, so parents still don't know who to believe.
    <STRONG>How can it not be a political issue when its being dealt with by the government to such a degree? Personally, ive seen precious few docs or scientists talking about this. Ive seen various MPs and the like passing on information from the docs. It appears to be a political issue because its being presented by politicians.</STRONG>
    I don't see everyday public health as a political issue. It has some political relevance in that the government is ultimately responsible for the vaccine's distribution and use, and administration of public health. I agree that the politicians shouldn't be telling us to use MMR just for the sake of following a political line, but the advice comes from the chief medical officer - a doctor - and is simply relayed via politicians.

    But because the popular press tends to find gossip more interesting than fact, people read the headline 'MMR Killer' and assume that the paper has got it right. They then exploit parents' emotions by running a sob story on an autistic child on the very next page. It's not helpful - and it makes it very difficult for ordinary folk to distinguish between fact and juicy story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats what we get for having 90% of the population being fucktards.

    The press are the press. Theyve always been this way and theres nothing new in their reporting.

    I guess it all comes down to how much faith people have in this government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>I guess it all comes down to how much faith people have in this government.</STRONG>
    Grrr, it shouldn't though, should it?

    These things should be independent from the government.

    I know the press is the press, but inaccurate or unnecessarily cynical reporting is one of my pet hates.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Grrr, it shouldn't though, should it?

    Of course it should. Its the governments job to implement these health policies. If people had faith in the government then they would trust them when they said this was safe and they would take heed of the medical evidence. The plain fact is that this government is viewed with suspicion and disgust and people just dont believe them when they say things, even if the evidence is there.

    Would it be nice if everyone in the country could understand the medical and scientific opinions and statements? Yes it would be very nice, unfortunately most people dont and those people are left having to, as they see it, take the 'word' of the government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG> If people had faith in the government then they would trust them when they said this was safe and they would take heed of the medical evidence. The plain fact is that this government is viewed with suspicion and disgust and people just dont believe them when they say things, even if the evidence is there.
    </STRONG>

    and if the media didn't continually attempt to undermine confidence in Govts then there wouldn't be so much of a problem.

    How often, in your lifetime, have you seen a story supporting any Govt beeing given as much prominance as one attacking it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I promised that I would explain reasoning for my hatred of the press, and I guess that this is the thread for it...

    Two years ago I was a hospital bed manager. One day, due to a surgeon being ill, we had to cancel an operating session and some people didn't get their operations. The press contacted us two weeks later asking why we had sent ten cancer patients home in taxis rather than operate on them. We eventaully found out that they were taking about the patients on this particular list. And they ran the story.

    The TRUTH was that there were six people affected, five were contact the day before they were due to come in and so were given alternative dates. Although we also got hold of the sixth, he refused to accept that the surgeon was ill and turned up anyway. We finally convinced him that he wouldn't get his op and sent him home in a taxi. He complained to the press. Of the six people NONE had cancer, and only the one who complained was being investigated for it. Incidentaly he got his op two days later.

    But then that didn't fit the story.

    Two weeks ago I opened a new theatre. Being designed on current standard it means we can operate on 1000 people more per year and is much more patient friendly. We arranged press coverage and were lucky to have BBC, Local TV and local media attending during the week. We had a celebrity open the unit and during her speech she made a statement about the closure of a local A&E which is scheduled within five years, much against local wishes (mine included!)

    BBC did an excellently balanced report highlighting the benfits.

    Local TV mentioned the extra patients, but pointed out that we have 1200 people more waiting this year, compared to last. They missed the fact that they wait 6 months instead of 18...

    Local Press said 'Local Celebrity blasts proposed A7E closure as open mouthed managers look on'

    Nice to see balanced reporting huh?

    #####

    These are just example I am aware of locally. I have also seen report in National News about our hospitals - and you will have seen Tonight with Trev Mc this week (that was one of mine!)

    If the press don't give balanced reports, you will get people who only see one side. It's called propaganda...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and if the media didn't continually attempt to undermine confidence in Govts then there wouldn't be so much of a problem.

    So theyre not even allowed to be critical now? If a government is fucking up then I damn well want to hear about it. The papers dont try to undermine anything, they merely tell us what the government is up to. If the actions of the government undermines peoples confidence then how on earth is that anything to do with the press?
    How often, in your lifetime, have you seen a story supporting any Govt beeing given as much prominance as one attacking it?

    Doesnt make good news when everything is going well...Whats the point of reporting on it if its going the way you want? Headlines reading 'Alls well' or 'Government doing what we wanted' are totally pointless. We dont get stories on government doing its job because thats its job..News is news, it reports what happens. If nothing out of the usual is happening then it wont get mentioned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    during her speech she made a statement about the closure of a local A&E which is scheduled within five years, much against local wishes (mine included!)
    Local Press said 'Local Celebrity blasts proposed A7E closure as open mouthed managers look on'

    Sorry but I must be missing something here. You say this celeb made a statement at the opening, was it a blast as the media said? If you agreed with her then whats the problem? There must be more to this mate cos that doesnt seem at all bad to me, cant even see any anti-NHS stuff in there at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wish I could have your blind faith in the integrity of the British Media Balddog.

    I agree that their job is to identify areas where the Govt fail, but is that what they are doing? Would the Mail or Telegraph ever say anything good about a Labout Govt? Would the Sun ever say anything good about Europe? In both cases I think we know the answer - no. This is because they already have their agenda and they will report what fits that agenda. This may not fit reality.

    Is the MMR 'scandal' about healthcare, or is it being used as a opportunity to attack a Govt? There is a difference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Integrity and media should not go in the same sentance...I despise ALL UK media..Their bias is incredibly evident in every single news programme or article...Having said that, what is to be done? Censorship?
    Would the Mail or Telegraph ever say anything good about a Labout Govt?

    Well I cant comment on the Telegraph but ive read several stories in the Mail which state their support for the government in a certain action.
    Obviously papers have an agenda...Nobody is arrogant enough to claim to be neutral(except for the BBC :mad <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">. Papers, as with everyone in the entire world, is biased toward their preconceived ideas..That doesnt matter, its up to people to be able to sift through the bullshit bias that the papers include in their articles.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>Sorry but I must be missing something here. You say this celeb made a statement at the opening, was it a blast as the media said? If you agreed with her then whats the problem? There must be more to this mate cos that doesnt seem at all bad to me, cant even see any anti-NHS stuff in there at all.</STRONG>


    The point I am making is about balanced reporting. There are two stories there.

    One is about closing an A&E unit. I agreed with her comments (not so much a blast and expressing her opinion). This is a 'negative' story. This is about having a go at the NHS.

    The other is about how an area of healthcare has been improved, and more people will get operatins, (and quicker than ever). This is a good story about how the NHS delivers and improves.

    Both deserved reporting.

    One agency covered both. One agecy was more interested in the number of patients on the waiting list (and took the opportunity to have a go) and one was only interested in the negative story...oh and as one of the managers I have to say that there were no 'open mouths' - but why report the facts?

    I can accept what was said because I know the facts, but the local residents don't. SO what image did they get?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The idea of balanced, unbiased reporting is a nice one. Unfortunately it isnt founded in reality.

    Think about all the articles that arent published because they arent PC.

    I hate the press as much as the next guy but I realise theres nothing we can do about it, even if there were something we could do, I believe we shouldnt do it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Daily Mail is not a newspaper to base your perceptions of the media on. It tries to act as if its intelligent, but at the end of the day is still a tabloid, and is one of the more nasty right-wing ones out there.

    Try reading the Independent, or (horror of horrors) the Guardian. Even the Hello!graph and the Times are better than the Mail.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>Try reading the Independent</STRONG>

    Which isn't.

    <STRONG>
    , or (horror of horrors) the Guardian. </STRONG>

    What you have done there is pick two newspapers who report from a liberal standpoint. They are two of the most PC papers out.

    Just because they subscribe to your viewpoint doesn't make them unbiased, it just means that you agree with their bias.

    You are actually better off reading the paper you disagree with, at least then you get to see the opposing standpoint...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    First of all, I read the Mail at work, mainly because its the only paper they have in the canteen and I also like a laugh, but also to remind and warn me that there are amazingly bigoted people out there.

    Also, I actually suggested the Times and the Telegraph as alternatives if you don't agree with a liberal bias. I think people should read intelligent, reasoned papers; not the complete shite published in the tabloids.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>First of all, I read the Mail at work, mainly because its the only paper they have in the canteen and I also like a laugh, but also to remind and warn me that there are amazingly bigoted people out there.

    Also, I actually suggested the Times and the Telegraph as alternatives if you don't agree with a liberal bias. I think people should read intelligent, reasoned papers; not the complete shite published in the tabloids.</STRONG>
    All papers are biased. The article I quoted was from the Guardian. The broadsheets are no better than the tabloids, they just used bigger words and more pictures <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MoK:
    <STRONG>You are actually better off reading the paper you disagree with, at least then you get to see the opposing standpoint...</STRONG>

    totally agree with you there. I am fairly left wing but read The Times, a paper with a tory slant. It helps put things into perspective.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    All papers are biased. The article I quoted was from the Guardian. The broadsheets are no better than the tabloids, they just used bigger words and more pictures <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">.</STRONG>

    I strongly disagree; the tabloids pick an opinion to take on an issue and relentlessly push it, refusing to accept that other opinions may be cogent and in many cases outrightly condemning those who differ in their views. The broardsheets (well, the one of I have the most experience of, the Guardian, does; I assume others do too) hold discussion on an issue in which they simply choose to support a particular side, and their story reporting tends to be far less biased than tabloid. They keep their overt bias for comment and letter sections. The Guardian, I know, also often has articles written by right-wing, in some cases far right, authors, but they tend to be respected on the issue they are discussing, and are given a fair hearing. They're not just tabloid nutcases.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well said Vox!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>I strongly disagree; the tabloids pick an opinion to take on an issue and relentlessly push it, refusing to accept that other opinions may be cogent and in many cases outrightly condemning those who differ in their views. </STRONG>

    You're right there, the tabloids are full of propaganda to scare and disgust, rarely giving two sides of an argument. The recent MMR being a good example.
    The broadsheets tend to be a lot more open with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>I strongly disagree; the tabloids pick an opinion to take on an issue and relentlessly push it, refusing to accept that other opinions may be cogent and in many cases outrightly condemning those who differ in their views. The broardsheets (well, the one of I have the most experience of, the Guardian, does; I assume others do too) hold discussion on an issue in which they simply choose to support a particular side, and their story reporting tends to be far less biased than tabloid. They keep their overt bias for comment and letter sections. The Guardian, I know, also often has articles written by right-wing, in some cases far right, authors, but they tend to be respected on the issue they are discussing, and are given a fair hearing. They're not just tabloid nutcases.</STRONG>
    OK, fair points.

    All I meant was that it is impossible to get news without bias. The broadsheets go into more depth than the tabloids and so, yes, they do allow their readership to formulate individual opinions.

    But if they write deliberately misleading or ambiguous articles which are there to embarass the government without factual basis, then they are all as bad as one another. And the example I used showed that the Guardian is guilty of this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Daily Mail is not a newspaper to base your perceptions of the media on. It tries to act as if its intelligent, but at the end of the day is still a tabloid, and is one of the more nasty right-wing ones out there.

    Maybe not but as that was the paper he used in his post, thats the one I spoke of. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    For the record, and we have had these discussions before, I read several papers each day which include both the Daily Mail and the Guardian.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good journalists actually, shock horror speak to people from both sides, write the facts as unbiased as possible and bother to research.

    We're not all that bad...though I would say that, I'm a journalist <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find that the best source for unbiased news is Reuters.
    All they do is report the facts, that's it.
    Goto their website, or get a mobile phone with wap on it.
Sign In or Register to comment.